Poll finds civility is declining in American politics; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/17/16

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Poll finds civility is declining in American politics:

"There’s been a worrisome decline in the civility of American politics, and it may be infecting even those of us who aren’t running for office.

Don’t agree? Then you obviously have no friends and hate our freedoms.

That kind of rhetoric may be where our political discourse is headed, judging from a Zogby Survey on Civility in U.S. Politics, commissioned by Allegheny College in Meadville, Crawford County.

Of 1,286 adults surveyed, 69 percent said that it was not acceptable for a politician to comment on someone’s race or ethnicity — a much smaller majority than the 89 percent who felt that way in a similar survey six years ago. Meanwhile, 65 percent said commenting on someone's sexual orientation was unacceptable, down from 81 percent in 2010."

The survey also found increasing acceptance for acts that have traditionally been defined as rude, like interrupting or shouting over somebody in a public forum, insulting them or questioning their patriotism. In a telephone call with reporters, Allegheny College president James H. Mullen Jr. called the findings “disturbing and in many ways chilling.” Voters, he said, are “expecting less in the political process in terms of civility.” “There seems to be less emphasis on, and a decrease in, acts of civility among adults nationwide,” said Zogby Analytics CEO Jonathan Zogby in a release accompanying the poll. “That might explain the state of politics at the moment.” Or it may be the other way around: The state of politics at the moment could be normalizing once-taboo behaviors. Nearly two-thirds of voters characterized the 2016 election as “extremely or very uncivil.” (An iron-stomached 11 percent found it “extremely or very civil.”) It’s not clear who is to blame.

"On “political correctness""; jensorensen.com, August 2016

Jen Sorensen:

"On “political correctness""

Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line?; Washington Post, 8/10/16

James Hoefler, Washington Post; Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line? :

"Did Trump cross the First Amendment line with his comments? We look for guidance to the Supreme Court’s most recent case to test the limits of this sort of speech: Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that 1969 decision, the court set forth a three-part test to determine the contours of First Amendment sanctuary: Was criminal action (1) intended, (2) imminent and (3) likely?...

We all celebrate the First Amendment and its broad protections of speech, as egregious and unpresidential as that language might sometimes seem. But all political liberties come with limits, and a case could be made that Trump’s brutal entreaties have exceeded that limit. Should he continue to exhort violence at his rallies, it may be his own legal defense needs, rather than those of his followers, that he will need to worry about."

Anyone who thinks Trump was "just joking" about shooting Clinton is missing the point; Vox, 8/9/16

Zack Beauchamp, Vox; Anyone who thinks Trump was "just joking" about shooting Clinton is missing the point:

"...[I]n a certain sense, it doesn’t really matter what Trump intended. This tweetstorm, from Dallas lawyer Jason P. Steed, explains why.

Before becoming a lawyer, Steed was an English professor. He wrote his PhD dissertation on "the social function of humor" and found something important: Jokes about socially unacceptable things aren’t just "jokes." They serve a function of normalizing that unacceptable thing, of telling the people who agree with you that, yes, this is an okay thing to talk about.

This, Steed explains, is why "it’s a joke" isn’t a good defense of racist jokes. By telling the joke, the person is signaling that they think racism is an appropriate thing to express. "Just joking" is just what someone says to the people who don’t appreciate hearing racist stuff — it shouldn’t matter any more than saying "no offense" after saying something offensive.

Likewise, Trump is signaling that assassinating Hillary Clinton and/or her Supreme Court nominees is an okay thing to talk about. He’s normalizing the unacceptable."

Trump’s reckless call to ‘Second Amendment people’; Washington Post, 8/9/16

Editorial Board, Washington Post; Trump’s reckless call to ‘Second Amendment people’ :

"“You aren’t just responsible for what you say,” Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, said in response to Mr. Trump’s remark. “You’re responsible for what people hear.”...

As is often the case, Mr. Trump was incoherent enough to permit more than one plausible interpretation of his words. If he had not so often celebrated violence and wielded dark innuendo against political opponents, minority groups, journalists and others, it would be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Unfortunately, a spokesman’s after-the-fact explanation did not clear the bar of plausibility. “Donald Trump was obviously talking about American voters who are passionate about their Second Amendment rights and advocating they use that power at the ballot box,” the spokesman said. No; Mr. Trump was talking about what would happen if Ms. Clinton were elected."

Dan Rather Warns Donald Trump Supporters: ‘History Is Watching’; Huffington Post, 8/10/16

Ed Mazza, Huffington Post; Dan Rather Warns Donald Trump Supporters: ‘History Is Watching’ :

"“By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics,” Rather wrote. “This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival.”

Trump not only went against the norms of politics, he may have even broken the law.

“If any other citizen had said this about a presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?” wrote Rather.

“To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching,” he wrote. “And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.”"

From Trump’s controversial words, a pattern: Outrage, headlines and then denial; Washington Post, 8/9/16

Isaac Stanley-Becker and Sean Sullivan, Washington Post; From Trump’s controversial words, a pattern: Outrage, headlines and then denial:

"One common thread linking many of Trump’s more controversial comments and actions is that he denies having said or done them. Trump claimed never to have mocked a disabled New York Times reporter, despite a widely disseminated video clip showing him making jerking movements with his arms. He claimed that he never said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero, despite a Q&A in which he said just that...

Trump also relies regularly on the turn of phrase “many people are saying” to make pronouncements without offering evidence backing them up.

On Monday, for instance, he tweeted: “Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the U.S. because of Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails.”

“Mr. Trump’s tweets speak for themselves,” said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks.

Trump and his allies often blame the media for misconstruing his words. The statement issued by his campaign after his Tuesday comments appeared under the heading: “Trump Campaign Statement On Dishonest Media.”"